Quote:
Originally posted by chromeboomerang:
Well, good question. I can't really answer it, but I can reccomend a relevant book called.The end of the Japanese navy, by Masanori Ito. He mentioned the poor use of submarines as one of the reasons for japans naval defeat. Should've been used against tranports, especially Guadalcanal ones. Hit the enemy on his way to the battle area. Sorry, I've gone off topic. He also mentioned the long lance "wakeless" torpedo had 4 times the range of US or Brit torpedoes. Bigger payload as well. The fact that major Japanese ships did not get radar til 44 was a big another big factor. He pulls no punches, does mention mistakes by Japanese naval commanders.
The copy I have was printed in 65 by Macfadden books.
|
Actually, I have that book, the only thing is that it is still in my "to be read stack". I have a paperback edition printed by Jove in 1982.
A quick glance gave only a cursory view of the skirmish in the Palawan Passage. However I had read in other publications regarding the long reach and the warhead capacity of the 24" Japanese Long Lance torpedo. A few of the books I have read suggested that the warrior ethos, samurai tradition if you will, dictated that it would be less than honorable to use a warship like a submarine to attack a non-warship like an oiler or supply transport. This is just another example of the difference in the Japanese philosophy of waging war from that used by the allies during the war.